% Eliot,
%
% >> Michel Py wrote:
% >> We don't throw away a published standard with running code
% >> from multiple vendors in exchange for the promise that
% >> _maybe_ someone will be able to produce a replacement that
% >> meets the requirements.
%
% > Eliot Lear wrote:
% > It is true that we should not make standards where there is no
% > running code. However, Running code != good practices or even
% > good ideas. And we do have running code (with both good and
% > bad ideas) for now while we figure out this question- it's
% > called IPv4.
%
% I will remind you that the official IETF position is that IPv6 is in
% production, which led to the creation of the v6ops WG. IPv6 is no longer
% a prototype we can tinker with. Or maybe you recommend a gracious
% restart?
%
% Michel.
what an odd point of view. if, as is asserted, the IPv6
is "production" then why are we still seeing drafts
changing the address format?
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
